Just throwing this out there CC, but if I were a betting man, I would hazard to guess that the general population is restricted by massive gun control.
I have never looked into this but it seems likely. The populace has no method to (or threat of) keeping the "government" in check.
Just throwing this out there CC, but if I were a betting man, I would hazard to guess that the general population is restricted by massive gun control.
I have never looked into this but it seems likely. The populace has no method to (or threat of) keeping the "government" in check.
More then likely, I doubt that people would even buy guns if they were available. The money would go towards food.
Even during the Korean War the citizen reserves were issued rakes and pitchforks instead of rifles.
So Captain, WHEN the regime comes to an end...how do you think it'll happen?
Kim Jung Un doesn't have a suitable heir and the rest of the family dies in a horrible blender accident.
The only way I see if happening is if one of the other Heir's decides to take over, and I just don't see it happening. I would argue that this government will last at least one more generation.
Here's what that looks like
Son Kim Jong-nam He was originally expected to succeed his father until he was caught trying to enter Japan Illegally. Its rumored that he has no interest in running the country, he's primarily a North Korean film maker
Kim Jong-chul about 32
Was also being groomed to suceed his father and had a stronger backing then his older brother until his father decided he was way too feminine to lead the country. He supposedly spends most of his time outside of North Korea spending his family's wealth. He doesn't have a power circle of supporters.
Kim Sul-Song daughter age 39
She's supposedly to be quite beautiful and extremely smart. She was her fathers personal secretary and also was in charge of his security. She supposedly holds the rank of Lt-Col in the North Korean army. At this point she is suppossedly also in charge of the propaganda department. I think this is the only picture that I could find of her second from right. She is not in line for succession, mainly because she's a girl.
Kim Yo-Jong about 23
Kim Jong-Ils youngest daughter, she is a senior part official and was rumored to be very close to her father. She works within the party on the nebulous succession committee which means that she's not considered to be in line for the party head position. She's also far to young to have the respect of the old guard.
Last edited by CaptainCrunch; 01-01-2014 at 11:51 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
What are the chances that Dennis Rodman is part of in some kind of wild Argo-esque plan by the US Government? He should have gained enough trust to get all "Breaking Bad" with some ricin-laced stevia.
The Following User Says Thank You to Wormius For This Useful Post:
My guess for an end to the regime is that KJU isn't really in power to begin with. Eventually he does or says something stupid enough and one of the real power brokers takes him out. These things are never perfect; people get power hungry, greedy or just plain tired of propping others up and they'll take him out when that happens. The only real argument against that kind of end is that the would-be assassins have it 'too good to bother' but that kind of thing only lasts so long.
So the populous never had a chance to defend themselves from their rulers.
Philosophically, I believe a well armed populace is a good vaccination against any potential tyranny of a government and/or crime in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
What good are guys with rifles against a trained military with armor and aircraft?
North Korea's army and intelligence services are not opposed to tamping out a revolution as needed, that's part of their indoctrination.
Also when your population doesn't believe they have it bad, they won't rise up.
Yeah, pro gun folks and conservatives like to throw out that reasoning, but there is no real historical or logical proof of it. The American succession from GB may be the only example that makes sense, and of course had a lot of other factors involved, the biggest that the ruling party/oppressive regime wasn't even on the same continent!
In fact in a lot of examples more guns means more violence. Look at all the 'freedom fighters' in Africa.
And as far as reduction of crime goes, well that's not even close, and easily found stats prove that.
When it comes to regimes like NK that have such an overwhelming level of control over their population, guns aren't going to do a whole lot. Especially in a modern age, as you mentioned.
Also like the thought about buying food vs buying guns. That makes a lot of sense too.
One of the biggest rewards that Kim Jung-Il gave peasants that overachieved or did something heroic was either a color T.V. or a radio. the interesting thing is that T.V's and Radio's in North Korea have no tuner dials in them. They are fixed to one channel, unless your one of the special people in which case you get a Sony Flat screen and a satallite receiver for your house.
But the most overstocked item in the North Korean black market is . . . wait for it . . . color T.V.s
So if you suddenly gave access to guns through the blackmarket or through gifts of Guns they would be turned in for bags of rice since for the most part the average North Korea see's very little rice through the year, most of their food is corn based.
shawnski read some more history and you just can't believe in those views - more guns means the extreme groups who impose on others basically get their way...
Either way normal, innocent people get told what to do at the end of a barrel...
The "stats" people talk about are far from clear cut. Have a lot at this video from Stefan Molyneaux. He does into it fairly well, and touches on other aspects that impact violence.
Oh I don't disagree that there are other important factors when it comes to gun violence and crime and violence in general. Poverty and focus on mental health are two big concerns, and also two things that the US is near the bottom of the list on compared to other western nations, and of course they factor into the gun violence debate.
However it's pretty easy to see that if guns did have a positive impact on crime and/or violence, the US would be one of the safest countries in the world. They're not, in fact they're one of the least safe. One can try to spin it however one wants, but even in using the gun lobbys maxim of guns = equals safety, the argument falls apart immediately and conclusively.
Regardless, there are enough threads about guns and US safety concerns so we don't need to repeat it here. Just wanted to disagree with your comment about how it may pertain to North Korea. Of course they are under strict gun control, but it's an overly simplistic way of looking at the problem as they are under strict EVERYTHING control. It doesn't look at the real issues or even the situation in general, not to mention it degrades into an impossible to prove chicken vs egg discussion.
I think that if the general population in NK had overwhelming proof that they have been deceived vis a vis the quality of life in SK things could get very interesting.
FWIW I think NK falls apart via a coup and China plays a surprisingly worthwhile role in increasing regional stability by putting a puppet state in charge. One that is less batsheet.
__________________
"WHAT HAVE WE EVER DONE TO DESERVE THIS??? WHAT IS WRONG WITH US????" -Oiler Fan
"It was a debacle of monumental proportions." -MacT
Here are some that cannot reply "hi" back as they were disarmed and could not defend themselves...
The Armenians from the Ottoman empire (Turkey),
Ukrainian farmers under Stalan,
Chinese under Mao,
Jewish under Hitler,
Cambodians under Paul Pot,
Ugandans under Idi Amin,
Tutsi in Rwanda,
Mayan Indians in Guatemala,
Buddhist monks in Tibet...
The list goes on...
10's of millions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jofillips
shawnski read some more history and you just can't believe in those views - more guns means the extreme groups who impose on others basically get their way...
Either way normal, innocent people get told what to do at the end of a barrel...
Please, do not patronize me by telling me to read history. I have almost a half century under my belt. Gun controls take away from self defense. Period. Governments, by nature, rule by force and the threat of violence, including "at the end of a barrel".
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
That vote changes if the lamb is armed, no?
And to bring this back to N Korea, they have already succumbed to the tyranny of government without ability to defend themselves.
Look now south of the border. There is a full court press to disarm the populace. This is a huge warning signal. No country would be crazy enough to try to invade the US due to the sheer number of privately owned weapons, so any attack on their ability to defend themselves from "foreign or domestic" foes would weaken them on two fronts significantly.
The most recent attack on the US was obviously 9/11.
Don't go at Saudi Arabia for their majority of nationals involved.. go after Iraq based on absolute BS information. And this was supposedly done with boxcutters....
Look now south of the border. There is a full court press to disarm the populace. This is a huge warning signal. No country would be crazy enough to try to invade the US due to the sheer number of privately owned weapons, so any attack on their ability to defend themselves from "foreign or domestic" foes would weaken them on two fronts significantly.
/weapons grade facepalm
Please stop, just stop.
I understand the relevance between the gun control discussion and N. Korea, but you are officially hijacking this thread.
You posted two posts hoping for someone to take the bait about gun control, and when they finally did, your went off on your rant.
This thread had a lot of good views and takes on N Korea, including your own, however, you are now mutating this into a gun control argument.
Oh I don't disagree that there are other important factors when it comes to gun violence and crime and violence in general. Poverty and focus on mental health are two big concerns, and also two things that the US is near the bottom of the list on compared to other western nations, and of course they factor into the gun violence debate.
However it's pretty easy to see that if guns did have a positive impact on crime and/or violence, the US would be one of the safest countries in the world. They're not, in fact they're one of the least safe. One can try to spin it however one wants, but even in using the gun lobbys maxim of guns = equals safety, the argument falls apart immediately and conclusively.
Regardless, there are enough threads about guns and US safety concerns so we don't need to repeat it here. Just wanted to disagree with your comment about how it may pertain to North Korea. Of course they are under strict gun control, but it's an overly simplistic way of looking at the problem as they are under strict EVERYTHING control. It doesn't look at the real issues or even the situation in general, not to mention it degrades into an impossible to prove chicken vs egg discussion.
Take out NYC, Chicago, and LA and see what the gun crime is like.. BTW those three cities have some of the most strict gun laws in our country.
While I tend to agree that more guns isn't the answer but gun bans don't work either, if that were the case Chicago would be the safest city in the world.
I'm not going to argue gun control because it doesn't do anything for either of us to just run in circles jerking eachother off
__________________
Thank you for everything CP. Good memories and thankful for everything that has been done to help me out. I will no longer take part on these boards. Take care, Go Flames Go.
